er to forbid any and all practices which had the effect of unduly enhancing the price which the people must pay for necessaries. 4 Tucker's Bl. Com. pp. 159, 160; Rex v. Waddington, 1 East 143, 102 Eng. Reprint, 57, 6 Revised Rep. 238. The laws against usury were obviously directed to the purpose of preventing unconscionable lenders from extorting oppressive profits and preying upon the necessities of borrowers. They were plain examples of laws preventing oppression, enacted at the expense of freedom of contract and individual property rights, for the benefit of borrowers,a class far less in number than the tenant class. 342; Keokee Consol. Coke Co. v. Taylor, 234 U. S. 224, 227, 58 L. ed. 1288, 1289, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 856; Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U. S. 138, 144, 58 L. ed. 539, 543, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 281; Central Lumber Co. v. South Dakota, 226 U. S. 157, 160, 57 L. ed. 164, 169, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 66; Mutual Loan Co. v. Martell, 222 U. S. 225, 235, 56 L. ed. 175, 179, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 74, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 529; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. 220 U. S. 61, 78, 55 L. ed. 369, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 337, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 160; Heath & M. Co. v. Worst, 207 U. S. 338, 354, 52 L. ed. 236, 243, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 114; Carroll v. Greenwich Ins. Co. 199 U. S. 401, 411, 50 L. ed. 246, 250, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 66; Budd v. New York, 143 U. S. 517, 548, 36 L. ed. 247, 257, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 45, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 468; People v. Havnor, 149 N. Y. 195, 31 L.R.A. 689, 52 Am. St. Rep. 707, 43 N. E. 541; Thomas Cusack Co. v. Chicago, 242 U. S. 526, 529, 61 L. ed. 472, 475, L.R.A.1918A, 136, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 594; Welch v. Swasey, 214 U. S. 91, 106, 53 L. ed. 923, 930, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 567; People ex rel. Armstrong v. Warden, 183 N. Y. 223, 2 L.R.A.(N.S.) 859, 76 N. E. 11, 5 Ann. Cas. 325; Tenement House Dept. v. Moeschen, 179 N. Y. 325, 70 L.R.A. Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 397, 704, 103 Am. St. Rep. 910, 72 N. E. 231, 42 L. ed. 780, 792, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383.1 Ann. Cas. 439; People ex rel. Einsfeld The legislature certainly has the power to regulate and modify common law and equitable defenses. State ex rel. Ornstine v. Cary, 126 Wis. 135, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 174, 105 N. W. 792. The usury laws are an illustration also of the right of the legislature to conclude that, in certain relations, it is, in the great majority of cases, impossible for the parties to deal at arm's length and with unimpaired freedom of will, and, consequently, that the legislature may, in such instances, refuse force and effect to contracts so made, or require them to be modified so as to conform to justice and fairness. Arizona Employers' Liability Cases (Arizona Copper Co. v. Hammer) 250 U. S. 400, 421, 63 L. ed. 1058, 1067, 6 A.L.R. 1537, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 553. Indeed, the common law itself has undergone a progressive evolution in respect of this very defense. Van Dyke v. Wood, 60 App. Div. 212, 70 N. Y. Supp. 324; Seventy-eighth Street & Broadway Co. v. Rosenbaum, 111 Misc. 577, 182 N. Y. Supp. 505. The classification made in the statutes is justified by the character and extent of the evil aimed at, and obvious differences in subject-matter. Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 332, 354, 61 L. ed. 755, 776, L.R.A.1917E, 938, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 298, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 1024; Rast v. Van Deman & L. Co. 240 U. S. 342, 357, 60 L. ed. 679, 687, L.R.A. 1917A, 421, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 370, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 455; Price v. Illinois, 238 U. S. 446, 453, 59 L. ed. 1400, 1405, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 892; Miller v. Wilson, 236 U. S. 373, 383, 384, 59 L. ed. 628, 631, 632, L.R.A.1915F, 829, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. v. Murray, 149 N. Y. 367, 32 L.R.A. 344, 44 N. E. 146; People v. Griswold, 213 N. Y. 92, L.R.A.1915D, 538, 106 N. E. 929. No question of impairment of contract obligation is involved in the provisions of N. Y. Laws 1920, chapter 944. Paterno Investing Corp. v. Katz, 112 Misc. 242, 184 N. Y. Supp. 129, affirmed in App. Div., 183 N. Y. Supp. 954; Munday v. Wisconsin Trust Co. 252 U. S. 499, 503, 64 L. ed. 684, 689, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 365; Mobile, J. & K. C. R. Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U. S. 35, 42, 55 L. ed. 78, 80, 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 226, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 136, Ann. Cas. 1912A. 463, 2 N. C. C. A. 243; People v. Cannon, 139 N. Y. 32, 36 Am. St. Rep. 668, 34 N. E. 759; Sackheim v. Pigueron, 215 N. Y. 62, 109 N. E. 109. Chapter 944 is not invalid because it does not specifically define what shall constitute an unreasonable rent and an oppressive agreement therefor. Nash v. United States, 229 U. S. 373, 377, 57 L. ed. 1232, 1235, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 780; Miller v. Strahl, 239 U. S. 426, 434, 60 L. ed. 364, 368, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 147; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. - Texas, 212 U. S. 86, 110, 53 L. ed. 417, 430, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 220; Omaechevarria v. Idaho, 246 U. S. 343, 348, 62 L. ed. 763, 767, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 323; Arizona Employers' Liability Cases (Arizona Copper Co. v. Hammer) 250 U. S. 400, 432, 63 L. ed. 1058, 1071, 6 A.L.R. 1537, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 553; C. A. Weed & Co. v. Lockwood, C. C. A. 266 Fed. 785; United States v. Rosenblum, 264 Fed. 578; United States v. Oglesby Grocery Co. 264 Fed. 691; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 327, 37 L. ed. 463, 468, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 622; International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 216, 58 L. ed. 1284, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 853. The landlord before the court may not be heard to complain that chapter 947 is unconstitutional, as improperly interfering with the rights of devisees, grantees, and others. Arizona Employers' Liability Cases (Arizona Copper Co. v. Hammer) 250 U. S. 400, 429, 63 L. ed. 1058, 1070, 6 A.L.R. 1537, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 553; Middleton v. Texas Power & Light Co. 249 U. S. 152, 156, 157, 63 L. ed. 527, 530, 531, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 227; Hawkins V. Bleakly, 243 U. S. 210, 214, 61 L. ed. 678, 683, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 255, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 637, 13 N. C. C. A. 959; Rail & River Coal Co. v. Yaple, 236 U. S. 338, 349, 59 L. ed. 607, 615, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 359; Jeffrey Mfg. Co. v. Blagg, 235 U. S. 571, 576, 59 L. ed. 364, 368, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 167, 7 N. C. C. A. 570; Plymouth Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania, 232 U. S. 531, 544, 545, 58 L. ed. 713, 719, 720, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 359; People ex rel. Doscher v. Sisson, 222 N. Y. 387, 118 N. E. 789. Chapter 947 is applicable to leases entered into prior to its enactment. School v. Ward, 201 N. Y. 358, 40 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1215, 94 N. E. 1001, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 251; Sackheim v. Pigueron, 215 N. Y. 62, 109 N. E. 109; United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Asso. 166 U. S. 290, 342, 41 L. ed. 1007, 1028, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 540; Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 Dall. 378, 1 L. ed. 644. Messrs. Louis Marshall and Lewis M. Isaacs filed a brief for interveners as amici curiæ: The statute prescribes no standards by which the justice and reasonableness and freedom from oppression which must be established in order to warrant a recovery under the laws are to be determined. International Harvester Co. v. Ken tucky, 234 U. S. 216, 58 L. ed. 1284, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 853; Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 634, 58 L. ed. 1510, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 924; American Seeding Mach. Co. v. Kentucky, 236 U. S. 660, 59 L. ed. 773, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 456; United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co. 255 U. S. 81, ante, 516, 14 A.L.R. 1045, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 298. In the provision relating to a bill of particulars, the essential elements entervalue are omitted. ing into the ascertainment of rental 42 L. ed. 819, 841, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 524, 418; San Diego Land & Town Co. v. National City, 174 U. S. 739, 753, 757, 43 L. ed. 1154, 1159, 1161, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 804; Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. (Cotting v. Godard) 183 U. S. 79, 85, 97, 46 L. ed. 92, 99, 104, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 30; San Diego Land & Town Co. v. Jasper, 189 U. S. 439, 442, 47 L. ed. 892, 894, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 571; Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Co. 212 U. S. 1, 53 L. ed. 371, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 332, 359, 61 148; Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co. L. ed. 755, 778, L.R.A.1917E, 938, 37 212 U. S. 19, 41, 52, 53 L. ed. 382, 395, Sup. Ct. Rep. 298, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 399, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1134, 29 Sup. Ct. 1024; United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch. Rep. 192, 15 Aun. Cas. 1034; Minne358, 386, 2 L. ed. 304, 313; Billings v. sota Rate Cases (Simpson v. Shepard) United States, 232 U. S. 261, 282, 58 230 U. S. 434, 57 L. ed. 1555, 48 L.R.A. L. ed. 596, 605, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 421; (N.S.) 1151, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 729, People ex rel. Central Trust Co. v. Pren- Ann. Cas. 1916A, 18; United States ex dergast, 202 N. Y. 188, 95 N. E. 715; rel. Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. People ex rel. Collins v. Spicer, 99 N. Interstate Commerce Commission, 252 Y. 225, 1 N. E. 680; People ex rel. U. S. 178, 64 L. ed. 517, 40 Sup. Ct. Witherbee v. Essex County, 70 N. Y. Rep. 187; People ex rel. New York C. 228; Lamb v. Powder River Live Stock & HI. R. R. Co. v. Public Service ComCo. 67 L.R.A. 558, 65 C. C. A. 570, 132 mission, 215 N. Y. 241, P.U.R.1915D, Fed. 434; Larkin v. Saffarans, 15 Fed. 423, 109 N. E. 252; Municipal Gas Co. 147; Johnston v. United States, 17 Ct. v. Public Service Commission, 225 N. Cl. 157; Laird v. Carton, 196 N. Y. 169, Y. 96, P.U.R.1919C, 364, 121 N. E. 772. 25 L.R.A.(N.S.) 189, 89 N. E. 822; Mat- The presumption sought to be created. ter of Davis, 149 N. Y. 539; Brearley is arbitrary and unreasonable. People v. Cannon, 139 N. Y. 32, 36| Am. St. Rep. 668, 34 N. E. 759; Mobile, J. & K. C. R. Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U. S. 35, 55 L. ed. 78, 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 226, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 136, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 463, 2 N. C. C. A. 243; Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U. S. 219, 239, 55 L. ed. 191, 200, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 145; People ex rel. Woronoff v. Mallon, 222 N. Y. 456, 4 A.L.R. 463, 119 N. E. 102; People ex rel. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 215 N. Y. 241, P.U.R.1915D, 423, 109 N. E. 252; Southard v. Curley, 134 N. Y. 148, 16 L.R.A. 561, 30 Am. St. Rep. 642, 31 N. E. 330; Christopher & T. Street R. Co. v. Twenty-third Street R. Co. 149 N. Y. 58, 43 N. E. 538; Johnstown Min. Co. v. Butte & B. Consol. Min. Co. 60 App. Div. 347, 70 N. Y. Supp. 257. This statute deprives the landlord of his liberty of contract, and of his property without due process of law. (N.S.) 292, 111 Am. St. Rep. 730, 76 N. E. 5, 5 Ann. Cas. 280; Adair v. United States, 208 U. S. 161, 52 L. ed. 436, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277, 13 Ann. Cas. 764; People v. Marcus, 185 N. Y. 257, 7 L.R.A. (N.S.) 282, 113 Am. St. Rep. 902, 77 N. E. 1073, 7 Ann. Cas. 118; National Protective Asso. v. Cumming, 170 N. Y. 315, 58 L.R.A. 135, 88 Am. St. Rep. 648, 63 N. E. 369; Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U. S. 1, 59 L. ed. 441, L.R.A.1915C, 960, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 240; Hirsh v. Block, 11 A.L.R. 1238, 267 Fed. 614; Stell v. Jersey City, N. J. L. —, 111 Atl. 274; Collister v. Hayman, 183 N. Y. 250, 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1188, 111 Am. St. Rep. 740, 76 N. E. 20, 5 Ann. Cas. 344; People ex rel. Burnham v. Flynn, 189 N. Y. 180, 82 N. E. 169, 12 Ann. Cas. 420; Woollcott v. Shubert, 217 N. Y. 212, L.R.A.1916E, 248, 111 N. E. 829, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 726; People v. Newman, 109 Misc. 622, 180 N. Y. Supp. 892; Brazee v. Michigan, 241 U. S. 340, 60 L. ed. 1034, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 561, Ann. Cas. -- 590, 61 L. ed. 1336, L.R.A.1917F, 1163, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 662, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 973; A. M. Holter Hardware Co. v. Boyle, 263 Fed. 134; Ex parte Dickey, 144 Cal. 234, 66 L.R.A. 928, 103 Am. St. Rep. 82, 77 Pac. 924, 1 Ann. Cas. 428; State v. Fire Creek Coal & Coke Co. 33 W. Va. 188, 6 L.R.A. 359, 25 Am. St. Rep. 891, 10 S. E. 288. The statute denies to the plaintiff the equal protection of the laws. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 369, 30 L. ed. 220, 226, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. People ex rel. Herrick v. Smith, 21 N. Y. 598; Re Tuthill, 163 N. Y. 133, 49 L.R.A. 781, 79 Am. St. Rep. 574, 571917C, 522; Adams v. Tanner, 244 U. S. N. E. 303; Brewster v. J. & J. Rogers Co. 169 N. Y. 73, 58 L.R.A. 495, 62 N. E. 164; Bradley v. Degnon Contracting Co. 224 N. Y. 60, 120 N. E. 89; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Nebraska, 164 U. S. 403, 417, 41 L. ed. 489, 495, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 130; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 41 L. ed. 979, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 581; People ex rel. Manhattan Sav. Inst. v. Otis, 90 N. Y. 48; Wynehamer v. People, 13 N. Y. 378; Forster v. Scott, 136 N. Y. 577, 18 L.R.A. 543, 32 N. E. 976; Litchfield v. Bond, 186 N. Y. 80, 78 N. E. 719;1064; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, Re Jacobs, 98 N. Y. 98, 50 Am. Rep. 636; Ingersoll v. Nassau Electric R. Co. 157 N. Y. 463, 43 L.R.A. 236, 52 N. E. 545; Roddy v. Brooklyn City & N. R. Co. 32 App. Div. 311, 52 N. Y. Supp. 1025; People v. Hawkins, 157 N. Y. 7, 42 L.R.A. 490, 68 Am. St. Rep. 736, 51 N. E. 257; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578, 41 L. ed. 832, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 427; State v. Loomis, 115 Mo. 307, 21 L.R.A. 789, 22 S. W. 350; Frank L. Fisher Co. v. Woods, 187 N. Y. 90, 12 L.R.A. (N.S.) 707, 79 N. E. 836; Wright v. Hart, 182 N. Y. 330, 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 338, 75 N. E. 404, 3 Ann. Cas. 263; Ives v. South Buffalo R. Co. 201 N. Y. 271, 34 L.R.A.(N.S.) 162, 94 N. E. 431, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 156, 1 N. C. C. A. 517; Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 87, 21 L. ed. 394, 412; Re Cheesebrough, 78 N Y. 232; People v. Marx, 99 N. Y. 2 Am. Rep. 34, 2 N. E. 29; Jacobs 183 N. Y. 207, 2 L.R.A. 165 U. S. 150, 41 L. ed. 666, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 255; Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. (Cotting v. Godard) 183 U. S. 79, 46 L. ed. 92, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 30; Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. 184 U. S. 540, 46 L. ed. 679, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431; Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U. S. 237, 49 L. ed. 175, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 18; Merchants' & M. Nat. Bank v. Pennsylvania, 167 U. S. 461, 463, 42 L. ed. 236, 237, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 829; F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U. S. 412, 64 L. ed. 980, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 560; Re Pell, 171 N. Y. 48, 57 L.R.A. 540, 89 Am. St. Rep. 791, 63 N. E. 789: People ex rel. Farrington v. Mensching, 187 N. Y. 8, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 625, 79 N. E. 884, 10 Ann. Cas. 101. The act impairs the obligations of a contract. Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1, 17, 84, 5 L. ed. 547, 551, 568; Bronson v. Kinzie, 1 How. 310, 11 L. ed. 143; Walker v. Whitehead, 16 Wall. 314, 21 L. ed. 357; Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U. S. 176, 24 L. ed. 716; Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 U. S. 595, 24 L. ed. 793; Barnitz v. Beverly, 163 U. S. 118, 41 L. ed. 93, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1042; Effinger v. Kenney, 115 U. S. 566, 29 L. ed. 495, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 179; Oshkosh Waterworks Co. v. Oshkosh, 187 U. S. 437, 47 L. ed. 249, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 234; Bradley v. Lightcap, 195 U. S. 24, 49 L. ed. 75, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 753. The fact that the act under review recites that it is based on the existence of a public emergency does not validate it, if its provisions are violative of the Constitution. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 121, 18 L. ed. 281, 295; Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 376, 61 L. ed. 785, L.R.A.1917E, 938, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 298, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 1024; Effinger v. Kenney, 115 U. S. 566, 572, 574, 29 L. ed. 495, 497, 498, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 179; Re Cheesebrough, 78 N. Y. 237; Wynehamer v. People, 13 N. Y. 401. People ex rel. Tyroler v. Warden, 157 If it was the purpose of the legis- People ex rel. Rayland Realty Co. v. While it may be conceded that the Guttag v. Shatzkin, 194 App. Div. While it is undoubtedly true that the 509, 186 N. Y. Supp. 47; 810 West End report of a legislative committee is a Ave. v. Stern, 194 App. Div. 521, 186 competent source from which to dis- N. Y. Supp. 56; Gilman v. Tucker, 128 cover the meaning of the language em- N. Y. 190, 13 L.R.A. 304, 26 Am. St. ployed in a statute, the only purpose Rep. 464, 28 N. E. 1040; Walker v. for which the use of such reports has Whitehead, 16 Wall. 314, 21 L. ed. 357; been hitherto sanctioned has been to Cooley, Const. Lim. 411; Green v. Biddetermine the scope of the statute that dle, 8 Wheat. 1, 5 L. ed. 547; Bronson may have been passed on the strength v. Kinzie, 1 How. 311, 315, 317, 11 L. of such report. It cannot be resorted ed. 143-145; Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 to for the purpose of construing it con- U. S. 595, 599, 24 L. ed. 793, 796; 12 trary to its plain terms, and we submit C. J. 1067; Litchfield v. Bond, 186 N. that its conclusions, which are either Y. 80, 78 N. E. 719; Bradt v. Church, without supporting facts or are contrary to the facts, can no more be deemed conclusive when the validity of the legislation is attacked than can a declaration within the body of it, by which it is sought to be justified. Binns v. United States, 194 U. S. 495, 48 L. ed. 1090, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 816; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. International Coal Min. Co. 230 U. S. 199, 57 L. ed. 1452, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 893, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 315; Woollcott v. Shubert, 217 N. Y. 212, L.R.A.1916E, 248, 111 N. E. 829, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 726. The fact that there are some landlords who are selfish and greedy is no more justification for this revolutionary legislation than the dishonesty of some merchants or farmers or mechanics would justify legislation destruc tive of their business. 110 N. Y. 542, 18 N. E. 357; Gaslight Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court: This is a bill in equity, brought by the Marcus Brown Holding Company, the appellant, owner of a large apartment house in the city of New York, against the tenants of an apartment in the house and the district attorney of the county of New York. The tenants are holding over after their lease has expired, which it did on September 30, 1920, claiming the right to do so under chapters 942 and 947 of the Laws of New York of 1920. The object of the bill is to have these and other connected laws declared The district attorney Adams v. Tanner, 244 U. S. 594, 61 unconstitutional. and 951 of the acts of the same year, which make it a misdemeanor for the lessor or any agent [197] or janitor intentionally to fail to furnish such water, heat, light, elevator, telephone, or other service as may be required by the terms of the lease, and necessary to the proper or customary use of the building. The case was heard in the district court by three judges upon the bill, answer, affidavits, and some public documents, all of which may be summed up in a few words. The bill alleges at length the rights given to a lessor by the common law and statutes of New York before the enactment of the statutes relied upon by the tenants, a covenant by the latter to surrender possession at the termination of their lease, and due demand, and claims pro- | tection under article 1, § 10, and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. An affidavit alleges that before the passage of the new statutes another lease of the premises had been made, to go into effect on October 1, 1920. The answer of the tenants relies upon the new statutes, and alleges a willingness to pay a reasonable rent and any reasonable increase, as the same may be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. It also alleges that they made efforts to obtain another suitable apartment, but failed. The district attorney moved to dismiss the bill. The judges considered the case upon the merits, upheld the laws, and ordered the bill to be dismissed. 944 for disputes as to what is a reasonable rent. They are dealt with in the decisions of the court of appeals, cited below, and in Edgar A. Levy Leasing Co. v. Siegel, March 8, 1921, 230 N. Y. (mem.) 834, 130 N. E. 923, by the same court. In this, as in the previous case of Block v. Hirsh [256 U. S. 135, ante, 865, 16 A.L.R. 165, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 458], we shall assume in accordance with the statutes, the finding of the court below, and of the court of appeals of the state, in People ex rel. Durham Realty Corp. v. La Fetra, March 8, 1921, 230 N. Y. 429, 16 A.L.R. 152, 130 N. E. 601, and Guttag v. Shatzkin, March 8, 1921, 230 N. Y. (mem.) 647, 130 N. E. 929, that the emergency declared exists. Hebe Co. v. Shaw, 248 U. S. 297, 303, 63 L. ed. 255, 258, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 125; Hairston v. Danville & W. R. Co. 208 U. S. 598, 607, 52 L. ed. 637, 641, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 331, 13 Ann. Cas. 1008. The chief objections to these acts have been dealt with in Block v. Hirsh, supra. In the present case more emphasis is laid upon the impairment of the obligation of the contract of the lessees to surrender possession, and of the new lease, which was to have gone into effect upon October 1, last year. But contracts are made subject to this exercise of the power of the state when otherwise justified, as we have held this to be. Manigault v. Springs, 199 U. S. 473, 480, 50 L. ed. 274, 278, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 127; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. MottBy the above-mentioned chapters 942 ley, 219 U. S. 467, 482, 55 L. ed. 297, and 947, a public emergency is declared 303, 34 L.R.A.(N.S.) 671, 31 Sup. Ct. to exist, and it is provided by chapter | Rep. 265; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Tran947 that no action "shall be maintainable barger, 238 U. S. 67, 76, 77, 59 L. ed. to recover the possession of real proper- 1204, 1210, 1211, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 678; ty in a city of a population of one mil- Union Dry Goods Co. v. Georgia Pub. lion or more, or in a city in a county Service Corp. 248 U. S. 372, 375, 63 L. adjoining such city, occupied for dwell- ed. 309, 311, 9 A.L.R. 1420, P.U.R.1919C, ing purposes, except an action to recov- 60, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 117; Producers' er such possession upon the ground that Transp. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 251 the person is holding over and is ob- U. S. 228, 232, 64 L. ed. 239, 242, P.U.R. jectionable, or an action where 1920C, 574, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 131. It is the owner of record of the building, be said, too, that the laws are discriminating a natural person, seeks in good faith ing, in respect of the cities affected and to recover possession of the same or a the character of the buildings, the laws room or rooms therein for the immedi- not extending to buildings occupied for ate [198] and personal occupancy by business purposes, hotel property, or himself and his family as a dwelling; or buildings now in course of erection, etc. an action to recover premises for the [199] But, as the evil to be met was a purpose of demolishing the same with very pressing want of shelter in certain the intention of constructing a new crowded centers, the classification was building." The earlier chapter too obviously justified to need explana942 is similar, with some further de- tion, beyond repeating what was said tails. Both acts are to be in effect only below as to new buildings, that the ununtil November 1, 1922. It is unneces-known cost of completing them and the sary to state the provisions of chapter need to encourage such structures suf |